Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

With 2.35:1, my 16:9 images would be smaller (I watch lots of sports), and I would probably need an anamorphic lens to maximize the 2.35:1 quality, and I'd lose the maximum height I'd have with a 16:9 screen.

With 16:9, my 2.35:1 images would be smaller (I watch lots of movies) and I would lose the maximum width that I could achieve with a 2.35:1 screen.

What if I did a 108" x 57" (max width, max height) = 1.9:1? Yes I'd get the bars on both resolutions, but I'd be getting the maximum picture size for both. Is anyone doing this, I mostly see people doing one or the other, or they have dual (2) screens, one of each resolution. What are drawbacks? I don't believe I'd need an anamorphic lens with this setup, is that correct?

If I were to spring for variable masking, wouldn't that take care of the picture framing so that no matter what resolution I watch, I wouldn't have the bars? The price is probably steep. I could also just live with the bars no? My room is pitch black with the lights out.

I'm looking at the JVC X700 or the Sony VW600 with a StudioTek 130 screen.

For some reason I dont come across many constant area screen threads which surprises me. I know there are some setups utlilizing the setup, but
others seem to think that you have to commit to one or the other and 1/2 of your library suffers for it. (the half using the ratio you didnt purchase)

I am not closed off to doing 2 screens at some point down the line, but I want JKP or Stewart screens which dont come exactly cheap.

To me constant area format screen setups accomplish the best of both extremes, both 1.85 and 2.35 films.
The loss is very minimal - scope films are close to their native aspect ratio, and both 1.85 and 2.35 films achieve close to maximum impact.

I am considering a 2.05 :1 ratio - is there a reason why you are considering 1.9:1 ? Do you watch more flat / academy ratio films ?

Were I at home Id include the links I found the other day - one has video in action showing the screen using diff aspect ratios and its impressive
will be home late tonight and will do so either tonight or thursday.

1.9:1 is the maximum i could fit in my space, vertically and horizontally, approximately, it's really closer to 2:1 like yours if I go as wide as possible. I'm restricted by height, as my ceiling is only 7.5' high. With 27" for center channel and stand, that leaves 57" + 6" to the ceiling. However, the frame sizes on the Stewart masking screens are pretty wide, at least 10". So I'd have to move it down to about 54" and have the frame right up against the ceiling.

I spoke with a guy at Stewart the other day, and he was saying unless you buy their variable masking technology, which is WAY out of my price range, I should go with either 1.78:1 or 2.35:1. And then spring for the vertical or horizontal masking if I wanted to really minimize the impact of the bars. He was fairly adamant about not having bars on both resolutions.

I also spoke to the 4K rep from Sony, and he thought that 1.78:1 is the best way to go, and when watching cinemascope content, the bars really aren't noticeable, especially in a really dark room. DaLite has a variable masking screen that is around 4K (without the screen), but I don't know much about their screens, I'm really set on the StudioTek 130.

It's all very confusing, hard to decide. I have a 2.35:1 area marked on my wall with string, it's the absolute maximum width I can go, probably too wide for 13' viewing distance, but it would give me a fairly large (100" diagonal) 16:9.

Can you post those links, i'd love to see. Her is my wall, 2.35:1 marked off, 115" wide. the 16:9 inside is 100" diagonal. In order to get the 2.35:1 size I really want for movies, which is the main reason I'm building this in the first place, I'd have to have a really huge 16:9 screen. So I'm leaning 2.35 (unless I win the lottery and spring for the Stewart variable masking).

I was faced with the same choice as you, how to achieve maximum impact for scope and flat academy films.
The best option may be to do a dual screen setup, but that can be pricey depending on your taste in screens.

After much contemplating, I have decided to go with a Constant Image Area myself. A scope screen minimizes the impact of flat academy ratio films, and 1.78/ 1.85 leaves a fair amount of black bars for scope films.
I will likely do a manual masking system for both formats which can be attached by strong magnets to the frame of the screen for a minor fee. Cant see spending more for a masking system or an anamorphic lens for the
projector that costs as much as the projector itself. I'll be getting a Sony ES55, as I do a mix of films, gaming and want the minimal gaming lag. I prefer the motion of the Sony over the JVC. I'm not sure yet if the Sony will need to be manually zoomed for aspect ratio changes between films, or if a compromise can be found between the two ratios without zooming. Regardless I dont mind taking a minute or two if it means maximizing the picture area for each ratio. In the end I may find the black level suitable as to not even mask the screen at all, but I like the finished look. I will likely setup the projector first for a day or two and dial in the picture size before ordering the screen to ensure I like the results.

I was going to consider the Stewart Neve screen, but they dont offer them in CIA ratios, so I may do either a JKP Da Lite or possibly Carada brilliant white.
Theater will be a light controlled room with dark walls.

Wow, this is encouraging information and very tempting to follow. The projectors I'm considering are the new JVC X700 or the Sony VW600 (although I'm very reluctant to dip my toe into the "4K" waters at this point).

The snap on masks are so convenient, not sure why Stewart doesn't offer this as a lower cost option. Their masking systems are so expensive.

CIA setups dont seem to get as much play on the forums as CIH setups do. Each to their own, but as much as I like a nice wide scope image, I prefer to not do with a smaller 1.85 image.
Also there may be a few blu rays where the 16:9 menus dont show on pure scope screens so CIA allows for a bit more room for seeing menu options.

Those are both excellent projectors - and both have lens memory so no manual zooming. Just affix the manual masks and start the flick.

Yes auto masking systems seem prohibitively expensive, considering they are several motors and what would seem basic mechanics.
Manual masking if pre-measured should affix in a minute or less.

Very glad to have heard about CIA myself.
You may have a harder time selling the screen later (or not), the CIA crowd is much smaller than CIH, but with screengrabs its hard to fault the results.

Well..I belong to the minority having just completed my basement with a CIA setup. I have a 120"x60" curve, AT screen (Center Stage XD) from Seymour AV. I got the panamorphic UH480. Just setting up the Oppo 103D and Harmony Smart Control.BTW, the projector is Panasonic AE8000U.
I haven't done the masking yet. Still messing around with settings and fine tuning everyday. Whatever projector you get, make sure it has motorized zoom/focus with memory.
In the projector I have lens positions for 16:9 and 2.35:1 memorized. I have assigned buttons on Harmony to change all the settings to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1 (Change lens setting, set aspect ratio to 16:9 or V-Fit, move the anamorphic lens in or out).
With the Oppo 103D I am able to shift subtitles if needed.
Once everything settles in I may consider masking.

In spite of one practical issues, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

Due to the lens movement, the projector alignment changes a bit often. I am the only one in my house who notices it, but I will fix that by adding a supporting bolt - need a drill bit to make it happen.
I have been meaning to write up the complete setup. I promise to do it before end of Jan.
I could get identical LCR for front (3xPendragon SE) and 2 HSU ULS15s. I have to build some more stuff so the entire front stage/sub's will be invisible.
If anyone has any specific questions please feel free to post a question or send me a PM.

Would like to get lens memory, but the Sony ES 55 doesnt have it as a feature, and I prefer it to the JVC in motion. Sony ES 95 is an older model and the leap to the 4k models is a bit beyond what I'd like to spend.
I havent seen the Panasonic though.

Would be awesome if you were able to snap some pics of a scope film and flat ratio on the screen - seeing as how CIA is a middle ground between the two standards it seems the lens doesnt have as long to zoom and refocus?

Of course, I do notice them. However, I am in the setting up mode so everything catches my eyes. I am watching the same movies over and over for tweaking and tuning (Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace in BD, MI:Ghost Protocol and a few Bollywood/Indian movies in Netflix). I truly haven't been into watching movies in the normal sense as of yet - always looking for imperfections.

That said, when I do watch 2.35:1, fortunately or unfortunately the entire 10" of black bar is in the bottom, not 5" on top and bottom each. I think it will be easy to mask the 10" area The curved screen does throw a curve ball for a DIY mask:-)

This set up allows me not to lens shift when I change to 16:9. The top of the image is always aligned to the top of the screen. When I watch 16:9, I have 5" vertical black bar on left and right. For some reason, this is less noticeable. May be because the eyes are busy focusing on the vertical span of the screen :-)

I think more than 80% of what I watch is 2.35:1 (no, I don't watch any TV in the HT, may be a big game). I am still debating if I need masking - rest of the family is oblivious to all these choices. They are having more fun than I do.

Would like to get lens memory, but the Sony ES 55 doesnt have it as a feature, and I prefer it to the JVC in motion. Sony ES 95 is an older model and the leap to the 4k models is a bit beyond what I'd like to spend.
I havent seen the Panasonic though.

Would be awesome if you were able to snap some pics of a scope film and flat ratio on the screen - seeing as how CIA is a middle ground between the two standards it seems the lens doesnt have as long to zoom and refocus?

When I bought my projector, it was really between the Panasonic AE8000U and JVC (XR35 I think) at that price point and with motorized zoom & focus. Epson did not have them. Rest were over my budget (like Runco). Between JVC & Pana, Pana was great value - Apples to apples it was close to $800 cheaper than JVC. If the price equation was favorable to JVC I would have picked that in a heart beat. I can't recall, but Sony just didn't make it to my short list - not that it is better or worse.

I wouldn't call CIA middle ground - it is the best of both worlds, so it is better than a fixed aspect, CIW or CIH, but for the masking issue. For CIA or CIH you must change the zoom so make the motorized zoom a priority. My room is 100% light controlled. My preferred setting is Lamp-eco & Picture Cinema2. Only for 3D, I am using Lamp-Normal and Picture dynamic. I can distinguish a sound system better than I can video gear. Keep that in mind when I say "I am astonished with the Panasonic PQ" - in terms of layman perception it is as good as a 15K Runco I demo-ed. I know I will get flamed for this so I am making it very clear. It is not a scientific statement, but in terms of what I remember I am not missing anything I saw at the dealer.

I will try to get some pictures in. With the anamorphic lens I could place the projector closer to screen than I would have to with a plain "zoom to fill the width" option. This may add to the picture brightness as well. I will post the pics you wanted in a week or so.

I got some quick phone pics of my set up. I paused a 16:9 movie and took pics in both 16:9 and 2.35:1 mode. Hence you will notice top & bottom content cut off in 2.35:1 mode. Obviously if you are playing the appropriate content, there is no cropping. I have the same pic with and without room lights so you can see for yourself if masking is really needed or not. And I threw in 2 bonus pics - the starlight ceiling (DIY) and the Panasonic projector with the anamorphic lens. Apologize for the pic quality - it was taking for ever to get some proper pics with proper lighting and camera.

Thanks for the pics. In the dark, it really isn't noticeable, and if I was watching a good movie, I don't think I'd ever pay attention, even if they were visible. May I ask what your throw distance, viewing distance is?

I agree technically the compromises are less in my view than a CIH or CIW setup.
Your pics illustrate just how satisfying both formats can be in the CIA arrangement.

The Panasonic is a steal with lens memory at its price point. Sony should really take a page from their book, there is no good reason outside of marketing
that they don't incorporate it in their ES30 or ES55 models. Maybe some new pro's will be revealed next month at CES ..

Thanks for the pics. In the dark, it really isn't noticeable, and if I was watching a good movie, I don't think I'd ever pay attention, even if they were visible. May I ask what your throw distance, viewing distance is?

My throw distance is 13'4". First row seat is right around there, between 12-14ft. If I mounted the projector around 14'6" then I could fill the width with just zoom and no anamorphic lens. The guidance from Projector Central calculator was slightly more conservative than from Panasonic's manual. I stuck with the manufacturer and it worked out good.

According to Projector Central, I can't use the projector I'm looking at (JVC X700) at the throw distance and screen size, too bright. Even if I slide the gain to .7, it's still too bright. I was looking at the StudioTek 1.3 material, at Stewart's, Sony's, and my A/V guy's recommendations. It recommends a much smaller screen than what I was looking at. Actually most calculators suggeset that my screen is too large at my parameters.

I have zeroed in on the size. I'm 75% sure I'm going to do this, so I guess not certain. I had to shrink the size a bit due to a soffet that juts out (top right corner), I have to make sure the projector has a clear shot to the whole screen.

Just out of curiosity, in your opinions, which is more important, vertical or horizontal masking, if I were to spring for one. Not sure they make them in custom sizes however. I would say horizontal masking, making the 2.35 pop.

How are you planning on building masks for a DIY? Would the magnets attach the frame or the screen somehow? Material? Should be very easy to construct.

I'm months away from doing my theater build out- so hadnt gotten that far, just recently decided to do the CIA, so that was coming up. There are tons of threads on the screen forum and DIY constant image height forum.
Whether its a CIH or CIA setup is irrelevant, the mechanics o f building the masks is the same, just diff dimensions. Most guys use a lightweight flexible board from a local hardware store and affix dark velvet or light absorbing material. A few chaps have even used cardboard. Normal magnets due to the width are not strong enough and they purchase special extra strong magnets to do the job. How they fashion them to their screens varies, I had not yet decided on my own.

Seymour AV themselves makes a CIA setup manual masking system, but I never called them to see if they do custom sizes. My bet is they do . I suppose I was going to do the Seymour route if the price was a few hundred dollars, but A DIYer coudl likely do the whole thing for $100 or so maybe less. Should not take long, once the design was arrived at. Probably a couple hours at most.

Those sizes for the 2 most widely used formats are great - very very little tradeoff! And the scope films are still wider given that 1.85 has minor pillar boxes.

According to Projector Central, I can't use the projector I'm looking at (JVC X700) at the throw distance and screen size, too bright. Even if I slide the gain to .7, it's still too bright. I was looking at the StudioTek 1.3 material, at Stewart's, Sony's, and my A/V guy's recommendations. It recommends a much smaller screen than what I was looking at. Actually most calculators suggeset that my screen is too large at my parameters.

My throw distance will be about 14 ft. Seating around 12-13 ft.

You dont have to worry about too bright. It wont be. Also, you can set the brightness of the jvc by clamping down the iris so you get just the brightness you prefer.

I'm still learning about this stuff, but if I clamp down the iris, will I lose contrast/black levels? My throw distance is towards the short side of the range, so I believe my contrast ratio will be lower anyway (short throw = brighter picture, long throw = better contrast).

You get better native contrast the more you close the iris. Thats why the 2.4 gain hp screen is so popular with the jvc crowd. By clamping down the iris fully they increase the contrast several fold at the expense of brightness, which the high gain screen brings back. Trust me, there is no problem with too bright. The brightness recommendation is based on what cinema projectors can reasonably do, not what is ideal from a viewing perspective. I think most will prefer a brighter image than recommended if possible, and you will get the option to choose your level.